BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alexander Trautsch

Alexander Trautsch contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On the validity of pre-trained transformers for natural language processing in the software engineering domain

Transformers are the current state-of-the-art of natural language processing in many domains and are using traction within software engineering research as well. Such models are pre-trained on large amounts of data, usually from the general domain. However, we only have a limited understanding regarding the validity of transformers within the software engineering domain, i.e., how good such models are at understanding words and sentences within a software engineering context and how this improves the state-of-the-art. Within this article, we shed light on this complex, but crucial issue. We compare BERT transformer models trained with software engineering data with transformers based on general domain data in multiple dimensions: their vocabulary, their ability to understand which words are missing, and their performance in classification tasks. Our results show that for tasks that require understanding of the software engineering context, pre-training with software engineering data is valuable, while general domain models are sufficient for general language understanding, also within the software engineering domain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

What really changes when developers intend to improve their source code: a commit-level study of static metric value and static analysis warning changes

Many software metrics are designed to measure aspects that are believed to be related to software quality. Static software metrics, e.g., size, complexity and coupling are used in defect prediction research as well as software quality models to evaluate software quality. While this indicates a relationship between quality and software metrics, the extent of it is not well understood. Moreover, recent studies found that complexity metrics may be unreliable indicators for understandability of the source code. To explore this relationship, we leverage the intent of developers about what constitutes a quality improvement in their own code base. We manually classify a randomized sample of 2,533 commits from 54 Java open source projects as quality improving depending on the intent of the developer by inspecting the commit message. We distinguish between perfective and corrective maintenance via predefined guidelines and use this data as ground truth for the fine-tuning of a state-of-the art deep learning model for natural language processing. We use the model to increase our data set to 125,482 commits. Based on the resulting data set, we investigate the differences in size and 14 static source code metrics between changes that increase quality, as indicated by the developer, and other changes. We find that quality improving commits are smaller than other commits. Perfective changes have a positive impact on static source code metrics while corrective changes do tend to add complexity. Furthermore, we find that files which are the target of perfective maintenance already have a lower median complexity than other files. Our study results provide empirical evidence for which static source code metrics capture quality improvement from the developers point of view. This has implications for program understanding as well as code smell detection and recommender systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Problems with SZZ and Features: An empirical study of the state of practice of defect prediction data collection

Context: The SZZ algorithm is the de facto standard for labeling bug fixing commits and finding inducing changes for defect prediction data. Recent research uncovered potential problems in different parts of the SZZ algorithm. Most defect prediction data sets provide only static code metrics as features, while research indicates that other features are also important. Objective: We provide an empirical analysis of the defect labels created with the SZZ algorithm and the impact of commonly used features on results. Method: We used a combination of manual validation and adopted or improved heuristics for the collection of defect data. We conducted an empirical study on 398 releases of 38 Apache projects. Results: We found that only half of the bug fixing commits determined by SZZ are actually bug fixing. If a six-month time frame is used in combination with SZZ to determine which bugs affect a release, one file is incorrectly labeled as defective for every file that is correctly labeled as defective. In addition, two defective files are missed. We also explored the impact of the relatively small set of features that are available in most defect prediction data sets, as there are multiple publications that indicate that, e.g., churn related features are important for defect prediction. We found that the difference of using more features is not significant. Conclusion: Problems with inaccurate defect labels are a severe threat to the validity of the state of the art of defect prediction. Small feature sets seem to be a less severe threat.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access